Posted on 05/07/2009 2:08:30 PM PDT by Michael Eden
The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand by passing a new gun law that virtually thumbs its nose at the federal government's encroachment on state and individual rights. If the tea parties were the first shot across the bow of liberal fascism, this is surely the second - and it's being done with heavy artillery.
Montana Governor Brian D. Schweitzer, for what it's worth, is a Democrat.
Montana fires a warning shot over states’ rights State is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and make a pointHot Air has the text of the law, titled:updated 4:54 p.m. ET April 29, 2009
HELENA, Mont. - Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.
In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.
That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.
The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.
Legal showdown Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana's sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government's regulatory authority extends.
"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.
Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.
Guns and states' rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.
Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.
'Made in Montana' Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.
If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.
Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.
"I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.
Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:This is defiance as a thing of art:
It is a determination to keep fighting for one's freedom no matter how hopeless things might look:
And why is this level of defiance necessary? An image worth a thousand curses suffices by way of explanation:
Gun and ammunition sales have soared out of naked fear of Obama.
And for good reason: Obama is pushing a treaty to ban reloading. Liberals are trying to regulate the components of ammunition as explosives and thus restrict ammunition. Liberals in California are nakedly attempting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment by regulating ammunition, hence making guns useless.
And the liberal campaign to deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment guarantees (even as they discover "penumbras and emanations" in the Constitution that let them kill babies) is only a distant side issue in the massive government takeover of American society. Obama's massive spending - more than every president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED - will leave this country with an insurmountable national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 and threaten this country's very survival. We are now on the hook for $12.8 TRILLION dollars in government spending and commitments in the brave new world of the Obama economy.
We've got a president who is firing CEOs, stacking boards of directors, changing the rules for the auto manufacturers' bankruptcy filings in order to favor the unions that supported him over the secured creditors. And if they don't like it, they are met with frightening threats from the administration and death threats from union members. If that isn't bad enough, we've also got card check on the horizon, which would allow union thugs to intimidate workers into unionizing with the union allowed to know exactly how each worker voted.
We've got a president who won't let banks repay bailout loans (which in many cases were literally forced on them in the first place) so he can continue to impose onerous terms and conditions on them and control what they do and how they do it.
We've got a president who is planning to nationalize health care - and the one-sixth of our economy that it represents - even as he moves to impose costly and burdensome cap-and-trade regulations that would (in Obama's own words) necessarily cause energy prices to soar.
And we've got a president who is attempting to nationalize student loans such that private lenders are phased out altogether. If Obama gets his way, the government will loan directly to families and students, making them directly indebted to the federal government. The government will necessarily get to decide which students, which schools, and which academic programs get loans. An option for students is to repay their loans by means of "national service," which already precludes any type of religious service whatsoever. The potential of liberal big government harnessing student labor to staff liberal organizations such as ACORN is becoming all-too real.
We have a new administration that moved to criminalize political differences by targeting Bush officials as war criminals, even as returning veterans and pro-life Americans are labeled as "rightwing extremists" in a DHS report sent out to the nation's law enforcement agencies and police departments.
I've been saying something over and over in different ways. What the liberals are doing now will ultimately result in a "rightwing" backlash. What is true in physics is true in politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Liberals are pushing and pushing and pushing through one new massive spending program and one new policy after another that will change and undermine this country forever afterward.
Under Obama, terrorism is now called an "overseas contingency operation" and terror attacks are now nothing more than "man-caused disasters." In attacking the CIA as a means to attack Bush, Obama has created a depressed, sullen, and angry morale which promises to transfer into "cover your ass" caution and bureaucratic gamesmanship. He has undermined our security to a shocking degree. If we are attacked, this country will swing so far to the right so fast it will be absolutely unreal.
But even if we are not attacked, our country will likely implode under its own weight: trillions of dollars of reckless spending will have that effect as our dollar devalues and our interest payments on the debt begin to soar when inflation begins to take its toll. Ultimately our taxes will skyrocket due to all of this spending. CBS News has an article from March entitled, "If China Stops Lending Us Money, Look Out." Well, guess what? They're doing exactly that. They're canceling our credit card.
In a poll of chief executive officers taken prior to the election, 74 percent of the executives said they feared "that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country." And some of the CEOs predicted that "some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented." And with the Congress in nearly total Democratic control, they ARE being implemented.
When Obama and the Democrats bankrupt the country and undermine our entire social structure with massive spending programs and massive bureaucracies that cannot be undone, which direction will the country turn? And how complete will that turnaround be?
Liberals are ignoring one ominous warning of popular outrage after another, claiming that conservatism and the Republican Party are dead. And they will likely ignore what is going on in Montana - which is led by a Democrat governor - as well. They are doing so to both their party's and their country's peril.
Montana, you've done a great thing for liberty, which is freedom from the growing tyranny of the smiley-face-fascist nanny state.
The backlash against big government liberal tyranny is beginning. And it will become larger and hotter as Obama's policies take their toll. Let us hope that the spark turns into a fire before - rather than after - Obama has done too much damage to recover from.
“In your face gun law”.
Sounds dangerous. Do they restrict pointing a gun in someone’s face or something?
This is a reaction against Obama. It is part of the panic-buying of guns and ammunition going on across the country.
Montana is saying that the federal government has no right to regulate what goes on INSIDE their state.
A couple of paragraphs from the news article:
“In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.
That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.”
It is a shot across the Obama bow. And I pray that states and citizens keep firing and keep their powder dry. A real battle is coming.
Should make the barrel of the rifle shorter than 16 inches, and add a sound suppression device on it, or thread the barrel.
My prediction: This will wind up in the Supreme Court, but only after Obama and Holder think they’ve got enough appointments to secure a 5-4 liberal majority, as well as infer a generous Federal power over the Commerce Clause.
The silencer aspect to this is pretty interesting. I hunted in two states (Oregon and Washington) in which I never thought about silencers. I also bow hunted.
Always thought of the silencer as a military device, as it reduces range. I can see the idea of hunting near homes and property making silencers useful.
My rifle is a Browning BAR in .300 Winchester Magnum. I liked to take a high point and wait. I’ve also got a 30/30 Winchester Model 94 for varmint hunting.
A new part of the argument is a conservative response to liberal abuse.
Liberals have had their “sanctuary city” policy that flouted federal immigration laws.
Now Montana, Utah, and Texas are using that same mindset to have “sanctuary states” for gun rights. AND GOD BLESS ‘EM!!!
By passing this law, the Montana legislature is already telling the feds that they give no jurisdiction in this matter to the Supreme Court.
Every one of them has to be aware of Wickard v Filburn, which already gives commerce clause jurisdiction over all trade, even when you manufacture stuff for yourself.
Have to add Kennedy to your list. He is the new “swing vote.” If he were replaced with a true liberal, you’d have every 5-4 decision favoring liberals every single time.
I also think that Obama can come up with - believe it or not - FAR WORSE judges than any other president we’ve ever before seen.
Ir is NOT panic buying! Panic implies that it is unreasonable.
Of course, Courts can reverse earlier decisions.
But I see Montana, Utah, and Texas holding their ground. I see them effectively saying, “If a federal agent attempts to enforce laws banned by the states, we will arrest them.”
And this going on now is nothing short of an outright reaction against Barry Hussein.
yes.
Swampsniper,
I would disagree. If I run out of a burning building in a state of panic, it doesn’t mean I should have stayed in the burning building.
There are times when panic is more than reasonable, IMHO.
If conservatives don’t start panicking, I hope they at least have a frenetic sense of hyperactive urgency in moving against this landslide of crap that’s rolling down the hill toward us.
I pray this survives a test in the courts. If this holds up in the SCOTUS, a significant part of federal government’s judicially mandated ‘authority’ over us will be nullified. As a country, we would be taking a big step toward what our founders had in mind when they created our founding documents. Because of this, I can’t imagine the courts siding with Montana.
Brilliant description! Sure to garner a slack-jawed stammering response.
I’m not so sure “surviving the court” is the best outcome.
The courts have usurped authority that they never should have had in the first place.
An interesting thing happened when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The SCOTUS had said he couldn’t do it. And Lincoln in effect said, “You are wrong, and I am overruling you.” And he flouted them.
It’s time for our elected leaders to stand up against the tyranny of black robed masters who have seized power and make rule from the bench.
Let the SCOTUS rule against the states, and let the states say to the federal government, “You want our guns? Come and take them from us!”
Brilliant description! Sure to garner a slack-jawed stammering response.
Ah, but you saw the liberal banner: "It's not fascism when we do it!"
This is going to be interesting, my prediction is ZerO gets rolled and does nothing about this.
A huge statement to the world.
Schweitzer spoke at the inauguration and gave a rousing speech. Was wearing a great bolo tie. Not too bad for a Dem. I think he and Obama are friends so I doubt this is meant the way we think it is. I don’t know all the ins and outs of this but so far I don’t think O has done anything about guns yet. He probably will wait till his 2nd term (if he has one). I wouldn’t get too excited about Schweitzer’s actions at this point. He’s not going to get into O’s face.
I’m excited about it, because this is a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. It’s not about Schweitzer anymore; he did his part.
Ask yourself this: why would a Democrat sign such a law?
The answer is, “Because the people demanded it.”
This is a reaction against Obama. People have been buying guns and ammunition as has never before been seen. They KNOW Obama, and they KNOW Democrats.
This is going to create a giant poop storm in the courts. I believe it is a tremendous step.
BTTT
Pretty much everyone that has studied the case believes that Wickard v. Filburn was bad decision. I just listened to Glenn Beck... He had Judge Napolitano on, who said that if this case went before the court, he believes Wickard v. Filburn would be overturned, undoing years of liberalism and its associated unconstitutional laws all the way back to FDR...
And that makes this even bigger, if Napolitano is right in his analysis (and of COURSE it’s horrible law).
This puts Obama liberals between a rock and hard place. The ACLU and their ilk will push this up the court system because that’s the way they roll.
If they lose in court, they lose big.
If they win, and the states thumb their noses at the SCOTUS (and again, I believe the people will DEMAND that), the court is revealed to be a paper tiger, and liberals lose big. If Obama sent in troops to enforce some form of judicial activist “law,” there would literally be a civil war.
Which will lead to secession, Good! Actions have consequences!! Thats the real world, not the liberal world.
Yes, the state will lose Fed money, but it will also QUIT paying fed money. The Socialist will starve.
I’ve also got a 30/30 Winchester Model 94 for varmint hunting.
- - - - -
I like to be thorough.
But, you’re right; they’re isn’t anything to eat afterward. If you hit a big jackrabbit, it just kind of explodes.
In my own defense, I saw “Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail as a child and was severely traumatized by that vicious white rabbit...”
I’ve also got a Ruger 10/22, but to be honest I’ve never done anything but target shoot with it.
Frankly, it never occurred to me that I should be using the .22 to kill tiny woodland creatures. I guess I’m just too used to heavy calibers for hunting.
Fwiw, I’ve only varminted when the animal population was too high.
One might think so, but most manufacturers of quality suppressors report a slight increase in muzzle velocity, and improved accuracy. Viz. Surefire and their line of (excellent) products.
The explanation is this: the suppressor acts as, in effect, a slightly longer barrel, accounting for the higher velocity. It also provides a very even and stable gas pressure at the base of the projectile, perfoming the same function as the barrel crown. The effect is not large, but is measurable.
If you're talking about shooting a .38 special revolver through a coke can filled with steel wool, well, that would probably turn things around a bit.
“If you’re talking about shooting a .38 special revolver through a coke can filled with steel wool, well, that would probably turn things around a bit.”
- - - - - - - - - - -
Well, so much for MY silencer.
I spent four years in the Army infantry and never used a silencer. I started out as an assistant machine gunner and ended as a machine gunner (M-60 and SAW). I guess they didn’t think they could pack enough steel wool in the coke can for me.
The USSA has been created and is an unstoppable result of the expansion of voting rights to non-freeholders, those under 21, convicts, imbeciles, and illegal aliens.
The non socialist states are slowly starting to realize that secession is the way forward.
This should be the position of all states' legislatures, and it may well be what it comes down to, and very soon.
Now, is this de facto secession? A declaration of civil war? I guess that's up to the feds to try it and see.
Someone sent me an article from a former missionary to Pakistan who concluded that the “threat” to the nuclear weapons or the state collapsing was way overblown.
I responded that I thought that Pakistan could collapse at any moment, that it was dry gunpowder just waiting for the right spark.
Up until this point, the USA (or USSA) was as strong as steel since the 1860s. But I believe that under this president and Congress, and due to this incredibly supermassive spending, that has changed.
WE’RE just dry gunpowder waiting for the right spark.
I don’t even theoretically see how we can retire our debts before they retire us (as a country). As inflation, massive interest payments, a devalued currency, shockingly high taxes (especially on the increasingly few productive people) take its toll, the more divided and angry the people will become.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.